On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think I know enough about the serializable code to review >> this, or at least not quickly, but it seems very cool if it works. >> Have you checked what effect it has on shared memory consumption? > > I'm not sure how to test that. Kevin, can you provide any pointers to > the test workloads you guys used when developing SSI?
During development there was first and foremost the set of tests which wound up implemented in the isolation testing environment developed by Heikki, although for most of the development cycle these tests were run by a python tool written by Markus Wanner (which was not as fast as Heikki's C-based tool, but provided a lot more detail in case of failure -- so it was very nice to have until we got down to polishing things). The final stress test to chase out race conditions and the performance benchmarks were all run by Dan Ports on big test machines at MIT. I'm not sure how much I can say to elaborate on what is in section 8 of this paper: http://vldb.org/pvldb/vol5/p1850_danrkports_vldb2012.pdf I seem to remember that he had some saturation run versions of the "DBT-2++" tests, modified to monitor for serialization anomalies missed by the implementation, which he sometimes ran for days at a time on MIT testing machines. There were some very narrow race conditions uncovered by this testing, which at high concurrency on a 16 core machine might hit a particular problem less often than once per day. I also remember that both Anssi Kääriäinen and Yamamoto Takahashi did a lot of valuable testing of the patch and found problems that we had missed. Perhaps they can describe their testing or make other suggestions. -- Kevin Grittner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers